Proving Equality of Sets - A Quick Question

  • Thread starter Thread starter jgens
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sets
AI Thread Summary
To prove the equality of sets such as A ∪ (B ∪ C) = (A ∪ B) ∪ C, it is sufficient to demonstrate that both sets contain the same elements. While intuitively appealing, the informal method of showing that both sets consist of elements x such that x is in A, B, or C may not always be rigorous enough for more complex problems. The preferred approach involves proving that each set is a subset of the other, which provides a formal basis for the equality. This method aligns with logical principles, reinforcing the validity of the subset approach. Ultimately, both methods can be valid, but the subset proof is recommended for clarity and rigor.
jgens
Gold Member
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
50
I just have a very quick (and simple) question: When trying to prove equalities like A \cup (B \cup C) = (A \cup B) \cup C, is it sufficient to note that both sets consist of all elements x such that x \in A, x \in B or x \in C? Or do I need to go through proving that each set is a subset of the other and consequently deduce that the two sets are equal?

I already know that the second procedure works and although the first one seems make intuitive sense, I'm concerned that it isn't considered sufficient or formal. I would appreciate any feedback. Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I would definitely go about it the second way; ie. show that each set is a subset of the other.
 
Yes. I would first assume that x is an element of the left hand side and do a prove by cases, then do the same assuming x is an element of the right hand side.
 
Alright, that's what I've been doing. Thanks for the feedback.
 
Since two sets are equal if and only if they have the same members, the first method is equally valid. But when you consider more difficult problems, it's going to be much more difficult to explicitly write down a set of conditions on x that are satisfied if and only if x is a member of the set on the left (or the set on the right).
 
The key here is to notice that this is just the 'set-theoretic translation' of the corresponding (obvious) fact from logic:
P\vee(Q\vee R)\equiv(P\vee Q)\vee R.

So my preferred proof would be:

x\in A\ \cup \ (B\ \cup \ C)\Leftrightarrow (x\in A)\ \vee \ (x\in B\ \vee \ x\in C)\Leftrightarrow(x\in A\ \cup \ B)\ \vee \ (x\in C)\Leftrightarrow x\in (A\ \cup \ B)\ \cup \ C.
 
I was reading a Bachelor thesis on Peano Arithmetic (PA). PA has the following axioms (not including the induction schema): $$\begin{align} & (A1) ~~~~ \forall x \neg (x + 1 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A2) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + 1 =y + 1 \to x = y) \nonumber \\ & (A3) ~~~~ \forall x (x + 0 = x) \nonumber \\ & (A4) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + (y +1) = (x + y ) + 1) \nonumber \\ & (A5) ~~~~ \forall x (x \cdot 0 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A6) ~~~~ \forall xy (x \cdot (y + 1) = (x \cdot y) + x) \nonumber...

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
5K
Back
Top